KPDP CR: The Rules of the Debate
valid in 2009/2010 academic year
The competitions of the KPDP-DL organized by the Debate Clubs' Association are ruled by
the cornerstone documents of the Program. These are:
The ADK Statutes
Adjudicator’s Handbook
KPDP Code of Ethics
The Rules of Competition
The Aims of the KPDP in the CR
Appendices to the Rules of Competition
The Rules of the Debate
These documents are valid for the whole debate competition season and can only be
changed after the debate year is over or before one starts. Depending on the nature of the
document it is the ADK directorate, event. ADK NTT that can change the cornerstone
document of the program.
The following rules are valid for the KPDP-DL competitions in the 2008/2009 academic year.
Table of contents:
1) Introductory Provisions (Objectives)
2) Format of a Debate
3) Rules of a Debate
4) Evaluation
1. Introductory Provisions (Objectives) The aim of the Debating League is to facilitate in an
attractive way the development of the skills, abilities and knowledge of the participants.
Competitive debate is intended to educate while teaching sportsmanship and social etiquette
as well. Favoring one or more of these aspects at the expense of others is to misunderstand
the fundamental principles of competitive debate. Nevertheless, considering the age of the
participants the formative aspect shall be considered essential since their approach to life is
being formed. In view of that, participants agree:
-
to adhere to the principles of fair play, decent behaviour and mutual respect to the
best of their abilities,
-
not to knowingly use untrue information,
-
to be willing to debate given resolution.
The adjudicators and coaches of individual teams agree to conduct themselves in the same
spirit and, in harmony with that, to prepare and evaluate the debaters.
2. Karl Popper Debate Format
Two teams participate in each debate. One team is given the role of the affirmative party, the
other one the negative. The selection of the role (party) shall be conducted in a way
announced beforehand to the coaches of both teams by the organizer of that debate. Each
team consists of three to five debaters, three of whom actively participate in the debate. The
team at the beginning of the debate shall announce names and the order of the three active
debaters. Debaters of a team can freely change within their team during a competition, albeit
not during a debate.
2.1 Roles of Individual Speakers
A1
The first member of the affirmative party (A1) starts the debate. S/he has the right to define
the resolution. S/he introduces the criterion (if the resolution is a policy resolution), and s/he
has the right to also introduce the criterion if the resolution is factual or value one. Then
outlines the structure and organization of the defense of the resolution. S/he presents the
focus of argumentation and then basic arguments of his /her party.
After A1 finishes his/her speech, s/he is cross-questioned by the third speaker of the negative
party (N3). Cross-questioning lasts 3 minutes. The main A1 speech lasts 6 minutes.
N1
The first speaker of the negative party (N1) must accept the given definition, unless it
contradicts the rules of the competition. If affirmative party brought criterion, s/he expresses
the standpoint of the negative party towards it, i.e. accepts the criterion or rejects it by
providing reasons for rejecting it and introduces own criterion, on which s/he shows why the
new criterion is more suitable/important in the context of the resolution. Her/his primary task is
to deal with the arguments of the affirmative party (i.e. to refute or accept them). N1 has the
right to present own constructive line to support the rejection of the resolution anytime during
his/her speech, but s/he has to make sure that he mainly managed to fulfill his/her primary
task. When introducing own argumentation line by policy resolutions, s/he always accepts
affirmative criterion or introduces criterion of its own, it is his/her own right to introduce
criterion for the negative line by other types of resolution.
After finishing his/her speech, N1 is cross-questioned by the third speaker of the affirmative
party (A3). Cross-questioning lasts three minutes. The main (N1) speech lasts 6 minutes.
A2
The second speaker of the affirmative party (A2) primarily supports the arguments of A1,
which have been challenged/refuted by N1. S/he refutes the refutation (i.e. rebuts). If the
negative party presented their own case, s/he shall refute it. After s/he thinks s/he has
managed his/her task, s/he shall continue in the argumentation of the affirmative party i.e.
presents new arguments to support the motion and supports existing arguments with other
pieces of evidence.
After finishing his/her speech, A2 is cross-questioned by the first speaker of the negative
party. Cross-questioning lasts three minutes. The main A2 speech lasts 6 minutes.
N2
The primary task of the second speaker of the negative party (N2) is to deal with the
argumentation of the affirmative party mainly in a way, how it was rebutted and supported by
the A2 speaker, i.e. challenges/refutes the rehabilitation of arguments presented by A1 and
new arguments brought by A2, eventually informs about the absence of affirmative
rehabilitation. If N1 presented negative constructive line, continues in the argumentation
already presented, s/he could not support the line with further new arguments, but s/he can
support what has already been said by new specific pieces of evidence. When choosing the
best strategy, s/he shall make sure that s/he mainly sufficiently fulfilled his/her primary task.
After finishing his/her speech, N2 is cross-questioned by the first speaker of the aff. party.
Cross-questioning lasts three minutes. The main N2 speech lasts 6 minutes.
A3
A3 is the last speaker of the affirmative party and his/her goal is to conclude the
argumentation of his/her party. S/he determines and analyzes main/key clash points in the
debate from the affirmative point of view and shows, how the affirmative party managed to
prove the resolution by means of its argumentation. A3 challenges statements of N2, who
challenged affirmative arguments. If negative constructive line was presented in the debate,
s/he shows why this line did not clash/challenge resolution’s defense. S/he does not bring in
any new arguments, but can support the presented ones with new concrete pieces of
evidence. If there was a clash of two criteria in the debate, s/he shows why the affirmative
criterion was in the context of the resolution more important and what role it played in the
motion’s defense.
The speech lasts 5 minutes.
N3
N3 concludes the debate from the negative point of view and the debate as such. His/her goal
is to finish clashing/challenging resolution defense and reconstruct own argumentation (if it
was introduced). S/he determines and analyzes main/key clash points in the debate and
shows why the negative party managed to clash or significantly challenge affirmative
argumentation during the debate and explains how this argumentation challenge supported
the negative construction line (if it was introduced). S/he does not bring in any new
arguments, but can support the presented ones with new concrete pieces of evidence. If
there was a clash of two criteria in the debate, s/he shows why the negative criterion was in
the context of the resolution more important and what role it played in the motion’s defense.
The speech lasts 5 minutes.
A1
6 min
N1 - A1
3 min
N1
6 min
A3 - N1
3 min
A2
6 min
N1 - A2
3 min
N2
6 min
A1 - N2
3 min
A3
5 min
N3
5 min
Preparatory time:
Aff. team 5 mins.
Neg. team 7 mins.
2.2 Three-a-side Debating
Team debating is characterized by a division of roles among all three members of the team
(introducing argumentation line, challenging opponent’s line/reconstruct own line,
synthesizing conclusion). Team’s argumentation unity and concurrence of individual
speeches is the most important. The team works in a unified way; it is not a group of
individuals. The adjudicator will evaluate how well the team members fulfilled their roles.
2.3 Preparation time, communication during a debate
During the course of the debate, the affirmative team has the right to take 5 minutes and the
negative team 7 minutes for preparation between individual presentations. Their request to
take time for preparation and its amount shall be announced in a suitable way to the
moderator/timekeeper of the debate.
Except for the preparation time (taken by either team), the members of the team are not
allowed to speak to each other during the course of the debate. It is not permitted for the
team to communicate with a person that is delivering a speech or being cross-questioned.
Coach - team communication of any form is not permitted during the course of the debate
(from its beginning till the end of N3’s speech). The only exception is when the coach has the
function of the time-keeper in the debate – s/he can give standard time-keeping signals.
2.4. Resolution types in the Karl Popper Debate Format
2.4.1. Policy resolution
Policy resolution proposes to take an action, change the current state of affairs. There is
obviously included some sort of procedure in the formulation of these resolutions, which is
most commonly represented as a general idea without concrete details of this procedure.
Most often, but not necessarily always, there is an expression “we should” or, “we should
not”. Examples: “The death penalty should be abolished.”, “Marijuana should be legalized.”
2.4.2 Factual resolution
The factual resolution tries to classify and define a certain sequence of things, actions or
opinions. Examples: “UFO exists.” “Criminal behaviour is genetically predetermined.”
2.4.3. Value resolution
Value resolution states qualitative judgments about value in a given topic. The character of
these topics may be esthetical, procedural or ethical. Resolution itself includes some sort of
evaluation expression, whose meaning is subjective and about whose explanation may be
argued in the debate. Examples: “Corporal punishment is justified.” “Smoking ban in public is
right.”
3. Rules of a Debate
3.1 Criterion
The aim of the criterion in the debate is to delimitate and shelter the argumentation line in the
debate.
Criterion can be understood as a goal, sense or purpose of change, which is proposed by the
party, which is debating a policy resolution. Criterion in the sense of goal clarifies, which
values the affirmative/negative party is debating and what is the party going to achieve during
the debate. The goal should be generally accepted, whose achieving should be desirable and
idea included in it should be positive. Stated goal should be at the same time realistically
achievable, sufficiently concrete and significant in relation to a given motion. It is obligatory for
both affirmative and negative parties to bring criterion when debating policy resolutions.
The criterion is understood most frequently as a standard in value or factual resolution. Such
criterion as standard is the tool to evaluate whether resolution has been proven or not, it
provides some sort of measurable value. The criterion by value resolution is most often the
explanation of the evaluation expression. It is a right (not obligation) to bring criterion in value
or factual resolutions for the one, who is bringing the constructive line.
Negative party does not need to agree with a given criterion. In such case they explain, why
they do not agree with the criterion, introduce criterion of their own and explain, in what
aspect is this criterion better. In case that the negative party introduces own constructive line
in the debate, they either accept the criterion of the affirmative party as their own or they
introduce own criterion for their constructive line. Affirmative party does not have to also
agree with the negative criterion, if they however proposed at the beginning their own
criterion, they could not propose a new one.
The criterion clash or arguing about two criteria is in terms of two constructive lines a part of
the argumentation and challenging of the resolution, therefore it can be executed by all
debaters, provided that the criterion is challenged in the N1 speech, or A2, later criterion
challenge is not acceptable.
Challenging criterion without sufficient explanation of this step and its use during debate is not
purposeful and would be evaluated as a wrong strategy.
If one party chooses criterion, then the constructive line has to be directed towards its
proving/fulfilling. Not meeting this obligation is fatal strategic and content mistake, which
means not being able to prove the validity of the constructive line.
The criterion should be formulated by those speakers that represent the constructive line from
their party (A1, N1) or those who react as the first one on the presented line (N1, A2)
provided that they do not accept presented criterion of opponents.
3.2 Definition
The purpose of the definition is to explain how the affirmative party understands the resolution
and what they want to discuss.
The affirmative party has the right to define the resolution in any way provided that:
- the definition does not depart from the common meaning of the resolution;
- the meaning of the words is not twisted purposefully;
- the definition is ”reasonable”.
The negative party is allowed to challenge the definition only if the definition in question does
not conform to the above-mentioned rules. If the negative party challenges the definition, this
must be done by N1, who will explain why the definition does not conform to the rules and will
offer a revised definition.
Negative strategy is considered fallacious if the team challenges the definition without
explaining the necessity of doing so during the course of the debate (purposeless challenge
for challenge only). The clash in a competitive debate should be over arguments, not over the
definition.
A2, event. N2 (if the definition was presented later by the negative party and A2 revised it)
may challenge the revised definition only when it does not conform to the above-mentioned
rules. The debater is not entitled to bring new definition when challenging revised definition,
but s/he can only argue for the definition that was originally proposed by his/her party.
The right of definition is a right (not necessarily a duty) of the affirmative party. If the
affirmative party does not provide the definition, this right is passed on to the first speaker of
the negative party. If s/he wants to use this right, s/he can do so provided s/he conforms to
the above-mentioned rules.
3.3 The Task of the Affirmative Party
Where the resolution is expressed as a factual one, the affirmative party must prove that
resolution holds true in a decisive/persuasive number of cases, which has been specified by
the definition (criterion) and accepted by the negative party.
3.4 Who Wins the Debate
The debate is won by the affirmative team if, on the basis of its argumentation, it upheld the
resolution debated. The debate is won by the negative team if, on the basis of its
argumentation, it disproved the affirmative case or put it into serious doubt. When the debate
is evaluated the “strength” of the arguments is taken into consideration (see 4.1. and 4.3.1.).
The negative team does not necessarily have to disagree with all of the steps in the
affirmative party’s process of supporting the resolution. As long as it proves the invalidity of
the conclusions derived from this process, it still can win the debate.
Apart of this fundamental rule there exist other co-rules for the evaluation of the debate. See
4.
3.5 Negative Case
The negative party does not have to present its own case in the debate. It should concentrate
on attacking the affirmative party’s case. However, if the negative party does decide to
present their own case, it is still their task to prove that the affirmative case is not valid and, at
the same time, to prove that their own case is valid. It is then the duty of the affirmative party
to not only prove their own case, but to also disprove the negative case. If the negative team
fails to prove validity of its own negative line, it still has a change to win the debate, if they
prove invalidity of affirmative line (see 3.4). Affirmative party has then obligation besides the
primary goal to prove its case to disprove also the negative case. Affirmative and negative
cases must be mutually exclusive - they cannot coexist side by side and be both valid at the
same time.
3.6 Argumentation
Teams should concern themselves with using logical arguments supported by relevant
evidence.
3.7 Refutation
The task of the negative party is to refute or put into a serious doubt the affirmative case as a
whole.
If the affirmative party has used a number of pieces of evidence to support one argument,
and the negative party is able to refute that main point with one counterargument, the
negative team can this way refute the whole group of pieces of evidence together. However,
to disprove a piece of evidence does not necessarily mean disproving the argument.
3.8 The role of evidence in supporting arguments
If the evidence is considered to be a generally known fact, it is not necessary for individual
speakers to explicitly prove its reliability. (Basic annotation is still a necessity though.)
However, if the party is introducing surprising facts, statistics, etc., it must be ready to prove
the authenticity of their evidence to the adjudicators.
3.9 Impromptu Debate
Based on the decision of the organizer, some debates may be impromptu, i.e. the debaters
do not know the topic beforehand. The preparation time and procedure for the impromptu
debate are determined by the organizer of the debate provided that:
- both teams receive the resolution at the same time;
- both teams are provided with similar preparation conditions.
Only members of the team (i.e. 3-5 registered debaters) may take part in the preparation, no
one else. Names and the order of three active debaters of each team are announced after
completing the preparation.
4. Evaluation
4.1 Content
Content means the arguments that are used, and it is separate from style. Thus, the
“strength” of the arguments should be measured without reference to the quality of the oratory
and presentation. Strength is understood as an arguments logical correctness, relevance to
the resolution, and its social and ethical dimensions. Relevant is considered only such an
argument that contains explicitly expressed conclusion regarding validity/non-validity of the
argument and impact of such an conclusion to the validity of the line/resolution.
Argumentation is regarded as obviously weak, if individual speakers of the team would be
clashing significantly each other. It is sufficient for the opposition team to disprove/challenge
such weak argumentation just by showing this strategic mistake.
The content category will also include an assessment of the success/failure of the debaters to
refute/rebut.
This evaluation must be done from the standpoint of the average reasonable person.
The adjudicator’s job is to assess the “strength” of the arguments used as well as the validity
of refutation. If a team introduces a plainly weak argument, they will not gain a high number of
points in the “content” category; on the other hand, such an argument will still count if the
opposing party does not refute it. Two consequences follow from this:
If the argument is plainly weak, it would not be highly assessed in a content category. On the
other hand, an opposing team that does not refute it may well have made a bigger mistake!
Even in a case of plainly poor argument it is still a duty of an opposing team to explain why
the argument is poor. To ignore any argument - even a plainly poor one - is a major content
error, which could finally mean that the party, which had introduced it, wins the argument. See
also 3.4.
The situation when debater continues in his/her speech after the time allocated for it is up is
also connected with the content evaluation. It is valid (and evaluated in terms of strategy –
see 4.3.1) that debater should be able to say everything important in allocated time. If s/he
exceeds this time, this could be done only with the purpose to finish current sentence or finish
an idea. It is not acceptable to continue in argumentation or challenging, to bring new
evidence, examples etc. If s/he does so, then the content of what s/he said after this limit
should not be taken into consideration by the adjudicator, i.e. as if nothing has been said.
Such effort is further negatively reflected in strategy evaluation.
4.2 Style
The “style” category refers to:
a) language use (rich vocabulary, ability to formulate ideas, composition of the speech and its
style, use of figures of speech, etc.);
b) manner of speaking. This includes both diction (articulation, intonation, phrasing, pace,
etc.) and the nonverbal communication (facial expression, gestures, postures, eye contact
with the audience, etc.).
c) fluency and persuasiveness – i.e. if the speech has an interesting introduction and
conclusion, if it could attract and warn the audience about key points of the speech (e.g. by its
readiness or sense of humor) and to what extent was the speaker able to eliminate boring
phrases and formalities in his/her speech.
d) the dress code belongs in debate also to the art of speaking – the adjudicator evaluates in
the style category, how was the dress code suitable
In debating in English, mistakes in accent, pronunciation, etc. should not be heavily
penalized, although the usage of colloquial (or even worse) English should be discouraged by
lower marks in style.
Debaters shall address each other politely and dress formally.
4.3 Strategy
The category of strategy basically involves two elements:
1) the structure and timing of the speech; and
2) the speaker’s understanding of the issues of the debate.
4.3.1 Structure and Timing
A good speech has a clear introduction, body and conclusion. Along the way there should be
signposts to help us see where the speaker is heading. The sequence of arguments should
be logical and flow naturally from point to point, which applies to the speech of each individual
debater and the three speeches of the team together.
Members of one team must not contradict each other and must support each other, i.e. must
develop their case. If the team is not unified, the adjudicator must consider it a major mistake.
Under the strategy category the adjudicator shall appreciate clarity, case division and
organization of the speech. Unfocused speech (failing to indicate where it is going) should not
be highly rewarded.
The organization and cohesion of the case is considerably improved by a criterion. It is
therefore recommended to establish a criterion providing the resolution allows one.
It is also considered to be a poor strategy to put forward less than two and more than five
arguments (their matter-of-factness and factual value are to be assessed under the content
category), and not making use of the information gained during the cross-questioning.
Within timing we distinguish two aspects:
a) speaking within the allowed time limit; and
b) giving an appropriate amount of time to the individual issues in the speech.
4.3.1.a Speaking Within the Time Limit
A speaker who goes significantly over/undertime (+/- 30 sec) will receive lower marks within
the strategy category. Lower marks receives also a speaker that continues further on with
his/her argumentation/challenge after the time limit is up, instead of just finishing his/her
sentence or idea (regardless if s/he has done so in 30 seconds).
4.3.1.b Time Division and Time Layout
As for the second aspect of strategy, speaker shows that s/he has understood the resolution
by giving priority to important issues and leaving the unimportant ones for later. It is generally
a good idea for a rebuttal speaker (i.e. anyone other than A1) to begin with the
attack/challenge on the other party’s arguments before going on to his/her own positive case.
The adjudicator, therefore, must evaluate not only the “strength” of the arguments under the
content category, but also the use of time and the proper understanding of priority under the
strategy category.
An important part of strategy is also utilizing information gained from cross-questioning during
the course of a debate.
4.3.2 Understanding Issues of the Debate
Closely related to the last point is that debaters should understand what the focus of the
debate is and be able to distinguish between the essential and non-essential issues. It is a
waste of time for rebuttal speaker to deal with trivial points if crucial arguments are left
unanswered. Such a speaker does not understand what the debate is about (is not following
the debate well), and should not score well in strategy. By contrast, speaker who understands
what the essential issues are and deals with them thoroughly should score well under
strategy.
4.4 Watching Opponents’ Debates
Members of any team can, as observers, watch any debate.
4.5. Cross-questioning
The purpose of cross-questioning is:
a) to help reveal and point out the weaknesses in the argumentation of the previous speaker
(opposing speaker),
b) to clarify unclear points from the previous speaker’s speech,
c) to prepare room for argumentation of one’s team.
The questioner asks and the addressed person responds. Questions and responses must be
brief and clear.
The questioner’s team in their subsequent speeches uses the information obtained during
cross-questioning. The questioner may ask about anything provided that s/he shows in the
further course of the debate a connection between the questions and the resolution debated.
The addressed person may refuse to answer personal questions.
Points for cross-questioning are actually represented in a distinct part of the evaluation; the
speakers will get points as individuals for cross-questioning. Making use of the information
obtained during cross-questioning is evaluated under the strategy category (see 4.3.1.b).
Pieces of information obtained from cross-questioning are not relevant part of
argumentation/challenging of the resolution, unless they are used in the main speech of any
of debaters. The adjudicator is in such case not taking them into consideration when judging
the debate.